Kerala High Court
Aneesh vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:32010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 77 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1048/2019 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.05.2024 IN SC NO.1576 OF
2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
ANEESH
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. CHANDRAN, KIZHAKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
IDAMALA, NEAR KARANTHALA KURISHADHI, IDAMALA
WARD, KARIPOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695541
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SRI.T.K.BABU
SMT.JITHY PRADEEP
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
SHRI.FAYAS MUHAMMED S.
SHRI.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN
SHRI.ASHISH PAUL
SMT.LAXMISREE JAYANTHA KUMAR
SHRI.MURALI KRISHNA PRASAD
SMT.JINU TREESA JOSE
SHRI.MARTIN SIVI
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:2:
2026:KER:32010
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P.
(ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND
WELFARE OF W AND C)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.04.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.A.214/2026, THE COURT ON
10.04.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:3:
2026:KER:32010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 214 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1048/2019 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.05.2024 IN SC NO.1576 OF
2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P.
(ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND
WELFARE OF W AND C)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 07.04.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.A.77/2025, THE COURT ON
10.04.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:4:
2026:KER:32010
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
Both these appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused in S.C.
No.1576/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court -VI,
Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and
201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Out of the
said appeals, Crl.A. No.77/2025 has been preferred by the first
accused and Crl.A. No.214/2026 is by the second accused.
2. The prosecution’s case, as revealed from the final report, is as
follows:
The second accused, a married lady and the mother of a minor
girl named Meera, was maintaining an illicit relationship with the first
accused. However, Meera, who disliked the said relationship, objected
the same and due to the said animosity, the first and second accused,
in furtherance of their common intention to murder Meera, on
10.06.2019, at 6.00 p.m. inside the rented house where second
accused and Meera were residing together, which was arranged by the
first accused, strangulated her with a shawl and caused her to fall
unconscious. Thereafter, to ensure the death, both the accused,
together, took Meera in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-21-
M-6395, ridden by the first accused, with the victim positioned
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:5:
2026:KER:32010
between them. They took her to a well located on the property of
PW48, near the residence of the first accused. The accused then tied
two hollow bricks to Meera’s body and threw her into the well, thereby
caused her death. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed
the aforementioned offences.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad.
Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of
Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the
necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session,
Thirivananthapuram, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned
Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial
and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-V. On appearance of the
accused before the said court, the learned Judge, after hearing both
sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records,
framed a written charge against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. When the charge was read over and explained to
the accused, both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter, as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the case
was withdrawn and made over to the Additional Sessions Court-VI,
Thiruvananthapuram, for trial and disposal.
4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:6:
2026:KER:32010
PW75 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P121. MO1 to MO49
were exhibited and identified. The contradictions in the 161 statement
of the prosecution witnesses were marked as Exts.D1 to D3. One
document produced by the prosecution was marked at the instance of
the defence as Ext.D4. After the completion of the prosecution
evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
during which they denied all the incriminating materials brought out
in evidence against them. Thereafter, both sides were heard under
Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the
accused under the said provision, the accused were directed to enter
on their defence and to adduce any evidence that they may have in
support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from
the side of the accused.
5. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and
Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. In default of
payment of the fine, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under
Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC, both the accused were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- each with a default clause to undergo rigorous
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:7:
2026:KER:32010
imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under
Section 75 of the JJ Act, the accused were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-
each with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the
order of sentence passed, the accused have come up with these
appeals.
6. We heard Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel
appearing for the first accused, Sri.Godwin Joseph the learned
counsel appearing for the second accused, and Smt. Ambika Devi S.,
the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
7. This is a case in which a mother, along with her paramour, is
alleged to have committed murder of her minor daughter, aged 16
years. The paramour of the victim’s mother was arrayed as the first
accused, while the mother was arrayed as the second accused. The
prosecution alleges that the motive for the commission of the offence
was the minor girl’s objection to her mother’s illicit relationship,
which purportedly led the accused to eliminate her.
8. The matter in this case had come to light on 17.06.2019,
when the mother of the second accused approached the Sub Inspector
of Police (PW64), Nedumangad Police Station, complaining that her
daughter, the second accused, as well as her granddaughter named
Meera, had been missing from 11.06.2019 onwards. As per the
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:8:
2026:KER:32010
direction of the Sub Inspector of Police, the Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police (PW63) attached to Nedumangad Police Station had recorded
the statement of the mother of the second accused and registered an
FIR under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act as a man missing case.
It was in the investigation that followed on the said complaint that the
entire matter relating to the murder of Meera, the minor daughter of
the second accused, was unfolded.
9. Undisputedly, this is a case where there is no direct evidence
to establish the occurrence. The prosecution, therefore, relies on
circumstantial evidence to prove its case. Moreover, the prosecution
relies on recovery evidence as well as scientific evidence to establish
the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. In
order to properly appreciate the materials and circumstances relied
upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it is
necessary to examine the evidence of PW1, the mother of the second
accused, who approached the police with a complaint stating that her
daughter and granddaughter were missing.
10. During examination before the Court, PW1 deposed that
during the period of occurrence in this case, Meera, her
granddaughter, was residing with her daughter Manjusha (A2) in a
rented house at Parandode. On 10.06.2019, her granddaughter came
to her house. Thereafter, at around 4.00 p.m., the second accused
called Meera over the phone, and she left the house of PW1 with food
for her mother, the second accused. Thereafter, she had not seen
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:9:
2026:KER:32010
Meera. Subsequently, on 12.06.2019 at around 6.00 p.m., the second
accused contacted her over the phone and informed her that one boy
had taken Meera and that the second accused had gone to Tirupathi
in search of Meera. The second accused further stated that the said
boy and Meera were also with her and asked PW1 to shift the
household articles kept in her rented house to the house of PW1.
Accordingly, on the next day, she, along with her husband (PW2), went
to the rented house, but the landlord did not allow them to shift the
household items, stating that the said house had been taken on rent
by another man and, therefore, he would not permit them to take the
household articles from there. Moreover, the landlord told them that
the house had been rented out to one Aneesh (A1). After a few days,
she attempted to contact the second accused over the phone, but she
did not respond. Hence, on 17.06.2019, she approached the Police
and had given a statement.
11. PW1 further deposed that the second accused had initially
eloped with one Sunil, and Meera, the deceased in this case, was born
out of the said relationship. Thereafter, the second accused’s
relationship with Sunil became strained and, hence, she was given in
marriage to one Christopher. The second accused and Christopher
resided together as husband and wife for around ten years.
Thereafter, their relationship also turned bitter, and the second
accused left the matrimonial home and started residing with PW1 and
her husband. While residing there, the second accused was employed.
Subsequently, CW31, the nephew of PW1, stated that after work, the
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:10:
2026:KER:32010
second accused was returning home on a bike ridden by another man.
When PW1 questioned her about the same, the second accused got
infuriated and started residing in a rented house along with Meera.
On one occasion, when she visited the said house, she saw a helmet
there. When asked about it, the second accused stated that it
belonged to her friend’s brother, and after a short while, Aneesh (A1)
came to the said house to take the said helmet. On 28.06.2019, she
reached the police station as intimated by the police, and at that time,
the first and second accused were present there. Then she came to
know that Meera had been murdered and that her dead body was
lying in a well belonging to Aneesh. Thereafter, the dead body of
Meera was brought to her house after the post-mortem examination.
When the wearing apparel and the ornaments seized from the dead
body of Meera were shown to PW1, she identified those items as that
of Meera, and they were marked as MO1 to MO8, MO15, and MO16.
12. When the father of the second accused was examined as
PW2, he had given evidence in similar lines as spoken by PW1. He
also identified the wearing apparel and ornaments of Meera, which
were marked as MO1 to MO8, MO15, and MO16, and were found on
the dead body of Meera at the time when it was exhumed from the
well. According to him, he was also present when the Fire Force
retrieved the body of his granddaughter from the well.
13. Before delving into a discussion regarding the circumstances
and other materials relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:11:
2026:KER:32010
of the accused, it is apposite to refer to the evidence of the doctor who
conducted the autopsy on the body of the minor girl. When the said
doctor was examined as PW55, she deposed that, it was on
29.06.2019, while she was working as Professor of Forensic Medicine,
the Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, that she
conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of a female
named Meera, aged about 16 years, the deceased in this case. The
post-mortem certificate issued by her is marked as Ext.P45. Referring
to Ext.P45, she deposed that in the autopsy examination, she noted
the following anti-mortem injuries;
1. Contusion of whole of left temporalis muscle.
2. Light bluish discolouration 12×2.5 to 3cm, almost
horizontal, across the front of neck, 8cm above the top of
breast bone.
3. Dark brown discolouration 4x2cm, suggestive of contusion
oblique, on the right side of neck, its upper inner end 2.5 cm
outer to midline and 3 cm above collar bone.
Thyroid cartilage showed fracture along the midline
separating it into two halves. Upper part of its body
showed bluish discolouration. Muscles underneath showed
brownish discolouration. Other neck structures including
hyoid bone were absent due to advanced decomposition.
Neck vertebrae showed decomposition changes, otherwise
appeared normal.
4. Contusion 12×0.8cm, muscle deep on the right side of chest
extending to left, the upper end just below collor bone.
5. Contusion 10x7cm involving the rectus muscle on the right
side of abdomen upper end just below stomach pit.
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:12:
2026:KER:32010
6. Contusion 7x5x0.3cm on the right side of abdomen, just
outer to midline and just below costal margin.
7. Contusion 2x1x0.5cm, on the right side of abdomen, 6cm
outer to midline and 4cm above anterior superior iliac
spine.
8. Contusion of rectus muscle 16x10cm involving the whole
thickness on either side of abdomen, upper end 11 cm
below stomach pit. Contusion of small intestine(1) 4×1.5cm,
involving the whole thickness, 12cm distal to fixed loop(2)
2.5x2cm involving the whole thickness 19 cm distal to fixed
loop (3) contusion of mesentery 7x2cm, involving the full
thickness in the middle (4) contusion of diaphragm 8x4cm
involving the full thickness on the right side just outer to
the central attachment.
9. Contusion 2.5×1.5×0.3cm on the inner aspect of left
forearm, 7cm below elbow.
10.Contusion 0.8×0.5×0.3cm on the back of left forearm. 8cm
below elbow.
11. Contusion 3.5×0.7×0.2cm on the back of right leg. 2.5 cm
below knee. (Page No.6)
12.Contusion 2.5x1x0.2cm on the inner aspect of right leg.
9cm below knee.
14. The doctor further testified that, on examination, the brain
was found to be liquefied, and a major part of it was found to be
missing. Mucosa of the upper part of the air passages showed
decomposition changes, and soft tissue and bone above the thyroid
cartilage were missing. Aspirated food particles present up to the
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:13:
2026:KER:32010
available bronchioles. A small leaf-like particle was found in the upper
part of the air passage. Terminal bronchioles and lungs were absent.
The stomach was full and contained soft rice, green gram, and other
identifiable food particles, having no unusual smell. Mucosa showed
decomposition changes. The urinary bladder was empty. Uterus
measured 9×3.3×0.5cm, cavity empty, ovaries and appendages were
not in an identifiable state. All other internal organs showed
decomposition changes.
15. Sample of viscera was preserved and sent for chemical
analysis. Scalp hair, pubic hair, right hemerus, right upper central
incisor tooth, and left lower second molar tooth, vaginal swabs, and
smear and anal swabs and smear collected and handed over to charge
WCPO 4603 in separate sealed packets and containers. A piece of
sternum, along with water sample brought by the police were handed
over to charge WCPO 4603 in sealed bottles.
16. According to PW55, she had furnished her final opinion as to
the cause of death after obtaining the chemical analysis report
(Ext.P46). Referring to Ext.P46, PW55 deposed that in the FSL
report, it was concluded that identical diatoms were present in the
bone marrow of the deceased and the water sample in the drowning
medium. Moreover, PW55 clarified that the presence of identical
diatoms in the bone marrow of the deceased and the water sample in
the drowning medium indicates that the deceased was alive at the
time of falling into the water and had inhaled water from the medium,
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:14:
2026:KER:32010
which contained diatoms. Referring to post-mortem report, PW55
further deposed that anti-mortem injury Nos.2 and 3 along with the
description given in the common paragraph below injury No.3 in
Ext.P45 post-mortem report, are suggestive of constriction force on
the neck. PW55 finally opined that the death was due to the combined
effects of drowning and constriction force on the neck. Therefore, the
evidence of PW55, the Doctor clearly establishes the fact that the
death of Meera was undoubtedly and certainly is nothing but
homicidal in nature.
17. Likewise, the evidence of PW61 and PW62, the firemen in
the Fire and Rescue Station, Nedumangad, who took the body out of
the well, reveals that they found a yellow rope tied around the portion
of the knee and chest of the dead body. This evidence also suggests
that the death of Meera was neither natural nor accidental, but
homicidal.
18. As already stated, this is a case based on circumstantial
evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
[AIR 1984 SC 1622], the Apex Court discussed the nature, character,
and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone and held as under:
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established;
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:15:2026:KER:32010
explainable of any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved; and
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused, and must show that, in all human
probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
19. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in
Bodh Raj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [AIR 2002
SC 3164], State of Uttarpradesh v. Satish [AIR 2005 SC 1000], and
Subramaniam v. State of Tamilnadu [(2009) 14 SCC 415].
20. In cases founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances is a requisite.
Moreover, the proved circumstances when taken together must
inevitably lead to the conclusion that the accused, and none other
than, could have committed the offence. In other words, to sustain a
conviction, circumstantial evidence must be comprehensive and
incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than the guilt of the
accused. Thus, such evidence must not only be consistent with the
accused’s guilt but also inconsistent with his innocence. Keeping in
mind the above-mentioned principles, the crucial question that arises
for consideration in the present case is whether the prosecution has
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:16:
2026:KER:32010
fully and conclusively established the circumstances relied upon to
prove the charge levelled against the accused. Furthermore, it must
be examined whether these circumstances, when taken cumulatively,
lead inexorably to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt, to the
exclusion of any other plausible explanation, including that of
innocence.
21. Taking the above into account, and reverting to the
present case, it can be seen that the fact that, during the relevant
period, the second accused was residing with her daughter in a rented
house at Parandode stands fully established in this case by convincing
evidence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, the parents of the second
accused, clearly establishes the said fact. Moreover, when the landlord
of the said house was examined as PW3, he deposed that it was the
first accused who took the house on rent and that the first accused
told him that he required the said house for the accommodation of his
sister and his sister’s daughter. According to PW3, the first accused
approached him through one of his friends named Murali. Moreover,
PW3 testified that it was the first accused who used to pay the rent for
the said house and also identified first accused during his examination
before the Court.
22. Notably, when one of the neighbours of the said house was
examined as PW9, he deposed that he was acquainted with both the
accused. According to PW9, in the said house, the second accused was
residing with her daughter, Meera. However, the first accused used to
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:17:
2026:KER:32010
visit the second accused in the said rented house and would come
there on a motorcycle after parking it on the rear side of the house of
one Sathyabhama (PW10). More significantly, PW9 deposed that on
10.06.2019, at 10:00 p.m., while he was smoking a cigarette standing
in front of his house, he heard the sound of a bike starting, and when
he looked, he saw the first and second accused, and the deceased
Meera leaving on a motorcycle. PW9 further testified that at that time,
the first accused was riding the motorcycle and Meera was sitting
between the first and the second accused. PW9 identified the said
motorcycle during his examination before the court, and the same was
marked as MO21. Notably, PW9 further testified that after he had seen
the accused and Meera leaving on the motorcycle, he did not see them
thereafter.
23. PW11, the wife of PW9, also deposed that during the
period of occurrence in this case, the second accused and her
daughter were residing in a neighbouring house. She also deposed
that first accused was a frequent visitor to the rented house of the
second accused and identified first accused before the court. She
further deposed that on 10.06.2019, her husband told her that he had
seen the accused and Meera going on a motorcycle.
24. When one Sathyabhama, who allegedly resides near the
rented house of the second accused, was examined as PW12, she
deposed that the second accused and her daughter were residing in a
rented house situated near her house. According to her, the first
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:18:
2026:KER:32010
accused used to visit the said house, and while doing so, he used to
park his motorcycle on the side of the road in front of her house.
Moreover, PW12 deposed that Meera, the deceased minor girl, told
her that as she and her mother were alone, first accused, who is her
uncle, was coming for their protection. PW12 also identified A1 as well
as the MO21 motorcycle before the court.
25. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW3, PW9, PW11, and
PW12 clearly reveals that, during the period of occurrence in this
case, second accused and her minor daughter Meera were residing in
a house that had been taken on rent by first accused. Moreover, their
evidence establishes that first accused was a frequent visitor to the
said house and that he was the one who used to pay the rent
periodically. It is also evident that first and second accused projected
first accused as the brother of the second accused. Further, the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 indicates that the second accused
maintained a relationship with the first accused after the breakdown
of her marriage with one Christopher. In these circumstances, the
motive alleged by the prosecution for the commission of the offence
cannot be said to be improbable or without basis.
26. It is true that there are no materials on record to
demonstrate that the deceased Meera had objected the relationship
between her mother and the first accused, or that such objection
motivated the accused to eliminate her. However, it must be borne in
mind that intention and motive are states of the mind, which cannot be
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:19:
2026:KER:32010
directly proved, and the court cannot probe into the mental state of an
individual to ascertain the precise motive behind an act. The
surrounding circumstances, as detailed above, reasonably persuade
this Court to conclude that the motive alleged by the prosecution
cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is well settled that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence, proof of motive is not a sine qua non for
establishing the guilt of the accused, particularly where the chain of
circumstances is otherwise complete and points unerringly towards
the guilt of the accused.
27. One of the main circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused is that the deceased
was last seen alive in the company of both the accused and that they
have failed to offer any plausible explanation as to what transpired
thereafter. It is primarily on the basis of the evidence of PW9, as
discussed earlier, that the prosecution seeks to establish that the
deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused.
28. As already noted, PW9 categorically testified that on
10.06.2019 at 10 p.m., he saw first and the second accused travelling
on a motorcycle ridden by the first accused, with the deceased minor
girl sitting between them. Likewise, from the evidence, it is
established that thereafter nobody had seen Meera alive.
Subsequently, it was on 28.06.2019 that the dead body of Meera was
detected inside a well on the basis of the information given by the first
accused. We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW9 that he
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:20:
2026:KER:32010
saw both the accused as well as the deceased Meera travelling on a
motorcycle on 10.06.2019 at 10.00 p.m., particularly since there is
nothing to suggest that PW9 has any sort of animosity or grudge
towards the accused to falsely implicate them in a case of this nature.
29. As from the evidence, it is established that it was in the
company of the accused that the deceased minor girl was last seen
alive; a burden is cast upon them to offer a plausible explanation
regarding the circumstances in which they parted company with the
deceased or the events leading to her death. Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the
knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon such
person. In the present case, it was therefore incumbent upon both the
accused to furnish a credible and convincing explanation as to what
transpired after the deceased was last seen alive in their company.
However, despite this significant incriminating circumstance, both the
accused have failed to offer any justifiable or satisfactory explanation
in this regard.
30. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the case of the
prosecution is that in the night of 10.06.2019, inside the rented house
of the second accused, both the accused together strangulated the
deceased minor girl by tying a shawl around her neck and caused her
to fell unconscious and took the unconscious minor girl on a
motorcycle by placing her in between them and thereafter, in order to
ensure the minor girl’s death, thrown her to the well near to the house
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:21:
2026:KER:32010
of the first accused. As already noted, the doctor who conducted the
post-mortem examination opined that the death was due to the
combined effect of drowning and constriction force on the neck.
Notably, the said opinion was expressed by the doctor after
considering the FSL report and after finding that the deceased was
alive at the time of falling into the water, as she had inhaled water
before death. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the
proved circumstances that the deceased was alive last in the company
of the accused, coupled with the failure of the accused to offer any
explanation and to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act, clearly points towards the guilt of the accused.
However, we are not oblivious of the law that the last seen
circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold a person guilty of an
offence.
31. Significantly, this is not a case in which the prosecution is
relying on the last seen circumstance alone to prove the complicity of
the accused in the commission of the offence. The prosecution has a
consistent case that it was on the strength of the disclosure statement
made by the first accused that the dead body of the deceased was
detected and recovered from inside a well. When the investigating
officer was examined as PW75, he categorically deposed that, while
the investigation was in progress, he obtained certain leads regarding
the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence, and
accordingly, both the accused were taken into custody from
Nagarkovil in Tamil Nadu and brought to the police station. During the
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:22:
2026:KER:32010
subsequent interrogation, the first accused made a disclosure
statement that, “എന്നെ കൊണ്ടുപോയാൽ സ്ഥലം ഞാൻ
കാണിച്ചുതരാം. ബോഡി കരാന്തലയിൽ ഒരു കിണറ്റിൽ ഇട്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്
എന്നെ കൊണ്ടുപോയാൽ കിണർ ഞാൻ കാണിച്ചുതരാം.”
According to the investigating officer, it was on the strength of the
said disclosure statement made by the first accused that the dead
body was detected and recovered from inside the well. The relevant
portion of the confession statement given by the first accused,
recorded separately and deposed to by the investigating officer, was
marked in evidence as Ext.P94. The recovery of the dead body on the
strength of the disclosure statement given by the first accused is
certainly a valid piece of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the
accused.
32. Another crucial material that glares at the accused is their
conduct in absconding to Tamil Nadu after the commission of the
offence. When the manager of a lodge named SDS Lodge located at
Nagarkovil in Tamil Nadu was examined as PW10, he deposed that on
11.06.2019, at 2.15 p.m., the first accused named Aneesh had taken
room No.204 in the said lodge and vacated the room on 12.06.2019 at
12.25 p.m. The arrival and departure register maintained in the said
lodge is marked as Ext.P10. According to PW10, the first accused was
then accompanied by a lady, and PW10 identified the first and second
accused as the persons who had taken the room in his lodge.
33. Likewise, PW13, another witness, deposed that while he was
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:23:
2026:KER:32010
having a tea at an eatery situated on the side of the water tank road at
Nagarkovil, the first accused, along with the second accused,
approached him and asked whether he could arrange a house for rent
for them. Accordingly, he arranged a rented house for them, belonging
to one Rosamma. According to PW13, it was either on 11.06.2019 or
12.06.2019 that the accused approached him, and the second accused
introduced herself as Ancy. PW13 further deposed that he obtained a
SIM card using his identity details and handed it over to the first
accused, and the phone number of the said SIM card is 6383260440.
According to PW13, his phone number is 9361104441. PW13 further
deposed that after three days, the accused returned the advance
amount and vacated the rented house, stating that they wanted to go
to Madurai. However, on the same night, they returned, stating that
they had missed the train, and continued to reside in the said rented
house. Thereafter, the first accused started going to work along with
one Nagarajan. However, after a few days, the police came and
enquired about the first accused and took both the accused from
there. PW13 identified both the accused before the court as the
persons for whom he had arranged the rented house. When
Nagarajan, the person with whom the first accused started to work at
Nagarkovil, was examined as PW36, he also admitted that the first
accused worked with him for two days.
34. The evidence discussed above, along with the call detail
records produced and marked in this case, clearly indicate that
immediately after the commission of the offence, both the accused
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:24:
2026:KER:32010
absconded. The conduct of the accused in absconding after the
occurrence is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Such conduct is a circumstance that may be taken into consideration
along with other evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in
the commission of the offence.
35. Another circumstance pressed into service by the prosecution
is the preparation allegedly made by the first accused to secretly
throw the unconscious minor girl into the well situated near his house.
Evidently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well
situated near the house of the first accused. The prosecution has a
case that, to throw Meera secretly into the said well, the first accused
made arrangements to shift his mother from his house before his
arrival, along with Meera, who was in an unconscious state, from the
rented house of the second accused. In order to prove the said fact,
the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW23, who is none other
than one of the close friends of the first accused.
36. The evidence of PW23 shows that on 10.06.2019, at 9:30
p.m., the first accused called him over the phone and requested him to
send an autorickshaw to the house of the first accused, stating that his
mother had to be taken to a hospital urgently. According to PW23, the
first accused further stated that he had entered into a scuffle with
another person at Kowdiar and that the police would come to his
house in search of him. PW23 further deposed that, at the request of
the accused, he arranged the autorickshaw of one Anand (PW24) and
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:25:
2026:KER:32010
asked Anand to go to the house of the first accused.
37. When Anand, the said autorickshaw driver, was examined as
PW24, he deposed that, as told by PW23, on 10.06.2019 at 9:30 p.m.,
he reached the house of the first accused and took the first accused’s
mother and sister to the Medical College Hospital in his autorickshaw.
Moreover, he deposed that after dropping the mother and sister of the
first accused at the hospital, he informed the same to PW23. The
evidence of PW23 and PW24 finds sufficient corroboration from the
call records of the mobile phones used by them at the relevant time,
which were marked in evidence in this case. The evidence of PW23
and PW24 in the above regard is convincing and reliable, and the
same will certainly help the prosecution in establishing that the
accused made all the preparations to dispose of the dead body secretly
by shifting his mother and other inmates from his house at the time
when he allegedly planned to throw the unconscious Meera into the
well situated near his house. The same is another telling circumstance
that points towards the guilt of the accused.
38. Another material circumstance relied upon by the prosecution
to establish the guilt of the accused is the recovery of MO32 (shawl)
and MO38 (bedsheet), allegedly effected on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by the first accused. According to the Investigating
Officer, the recovery was carried out at the instance of the first
accused, who led the police to a bushy area within a property situated
near a lodge at Nagerkovil, where the accused had reportedly stayed
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:26:
2026:KER:32010
together for a day. The recovery mahazar has been marked as Ext.P43,
and the relevant portion of the confession statement leading to the
recovery, as recorded in the seizure mahazar and proved through the
Investigating Officer, has been marked as Ext.P43(a). Notably, the
shawl (MO32) is alleged to have been used by the accused to
strangulate the deceased. It is further pertinent that, as per the FSL
report relating to the chemical examination of MO38 (bedsheet),
human blood was detected, and DNA analysis established that the
blood belonged to the deceased. However, this incriminating
circumstance was not put to the accused when he was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., thereby effectively denying him the opportunity to
offer any explanation in this regard. Consequently, the said scientific
evidence cannot be legally relied upon against the accused.
39. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel
for the appellants to assail the impugned judgment of conviction is
that there is no proper identification of the dead body, which was
allegedly recovered from the well. According to the learned counsel,
there is ample evidence to show that when the dead body was
recovered, it was in an advanced stage of decomposition. The learned
counsel mainly relied on Ext.P59 series photographs, the evidence of
the doctor who conducted the autopsy examination, the evidence of
the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest on the dead body of the
deceased, and the inquest report prepared by him to establish that the
body was in an advanced stage of decomposition, making it practically
unrecognizable.
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:27:
2026:KER:32010
40. While considering the said submission, it is to be noted that
from the evidence, it is established that the dead body was recovered
from the well on the 19th day after the minor girl went missing. As
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, there are
materials to show that the body was in an advanced stage of
decomposition and that the face of the deceased was not easily
recognizable. However, in the case at hand, it is pertinent to note that
the recovery of the body was effected on the strength of the disclosure
statement made by the first accused. Moreover, when the dead body
was recovered, PW2, the grandfather of the deceased minor girl, was
present there. During examination before the court, PW2 categorically
deposed that he identified the dead body as that of his granddaughter.
The evidence of PW2 in the above regard was not even challenged in
cross-examination.
41. We are not oblivious to the fact that, irrespective of the
absence of any challenge from the side of the defence, it is the primary
duty of the prosecution to establish the identity of the dead body.
When the body was found in a decomposed condition, the proper and
best course available to the prosecution to establish the identity of the
deceased was to resort to scientific methods such as DNA profiling.
The investigating agency could also have adopted other forensic
methods, including superimposition, if required. However, in the
present case, no such examination was conducted. This lapse on the
part of the investigating agency cannot be lightly ignored.
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:28:
2026:KER:32010
42. However, in any event, the worst that can be assumed in the
absence of proper identification is that the dead body was not
recovered at all. It is well settled that the failure to recover the corpus
delicti will not invariably render the prosecution’s case doubtful. In
this regard, we are fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in
Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 552]. Therefore, the
non-conduct of DNA examination, by itself, is not a ground to discard
the prosecution’s case if there are other compelling circumstances and
materials to prove the guilt of the accused.
43. The non-conduct of DNA examination in the present case
can be treated only as a lapse in the investigation, particularly when it
cannot be said that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of
the dead body. Notably, PW2, who identified the dead body, also
identified the ornaments and dress materials found on it when he was
confronted with them before the court, and they were marked as MO1
to MO8. We are not unmindful of the fact that the prosecution did not
make an attempt to establish through PW2 that the ornaments found
on the dead body were those that belonged to his granddaughter.
However, when the ornaments and dress collected from the dead
body of the deceased were shown to PW1, the grandmother of the
deceased, she deposed that those ornaments and wearing apparel
belonged to her granddaughter.
44. However, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:29:
2026:KER:32010
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector,
Hubli (2024 KHC Online 6082), the learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the identification of the dead body solely on the
strength of the ornaments found on it cannot be acted upon. We do
agree that in the said case also, the prime question was regarding the
identification of a dead body recovered from a well after twelve days
of the deceased going missing. However, the facts and circumstances
relating to the recovery and identification of the dead body in that
case were different from those in the present case. In paragraph 22 of
the said judgment, it is stated as follows:
“22. Furthermore, we deem it appropriate to note that the identity
of the dead body recovered from the well is also not beyond
question. The Trial Court had also noted the doubts regarding the
identity of the dead body, however, the identity of the deceased was
held to be established in light of the fact that the identification was
done by PW-1, father of the deceased. The Trial Court also relied
upon the fact that the identification was not challenged by either
side. Be that as it may, we consider it important to note that there
exist serious doubts regarding the identity of the dead body
recovered from the well. The description of the deceased given by
PW-1 in his complaint Ext.P1 did not match with the description of
the dead body. The clothes found on the dead body were
substantially different from the clothes mentioned by PW-1 in his
complaint. The presence of ornaments was not mentioned in the
complaint. Furthermore, identification of the dead body by face
was not possible as the body had started decomposing due to lapse
of time. Admittedly, the dead body was recovered after 12 days of
the incident from a well. Sensitive body parts were found bitten by
aquatic animals inside the well. The theory of ornaments has
already been held to be a figment of imagination by the Trial Court
and the High Court in an unequivocal manner. Therefore, the
prosecution case regarding the identity of the dead body is not free
from doubts.”
45. A holistic reading of the above paragraph shows that, in
that case, the trial court raised doubts regarding the identity of the
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:30:
2026:KER:32010
dead body and acquitted the accused. Subsequently, the High Court
interfered with the said order of acquittal. While considering the
appeals against the judgment of conviction passed by the High Court,
the Supreme Court found that serious doubts existed regarding the
identity of the dead body recovered from the well. One of the main
reasons that persuaded the Supreme Court to doubt the identity of the
dead body was that the description of the deceased given by PW1 in
his complaint did not match the description of the dead body.
Likewise, the clothes found on the dead body were substantially
different from those mentioned by PW1 in his complaint. Moreover, in
the said judgment, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s
case that the dead body was recovered on the strength of an
extrajudicial confession made by the accused to PW1, the father of the
deceased, was itself doubtful.
46. Notably, in the present case, no such suspicious
circumstances exist. PW2, the grandfather of the deceased,
categorically deposed that he identified the dead body as that of his
granddaughter. Likewise, PW56, the Tahsildar who conducted the
inquest, also deposed that PW2 identified the dead body as that of the
deceased Meera at the time of the inquest. The above evidence of PW2
and the Tahsildar remains unchallenged in cross-examination.
Moreover, at no stage of the trial the defence raise any serious
challenge regarding the identity of the dead body, and even at the time
when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., no
such challenge was raised.
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:31:
2026:KER:32010
47. Further, we find no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged
evidence of PW1, the grandmother of the deceased, that the
ornaments and dress found on the dead body belonged to her
granddaughter. Significantly, PW1 and PW2 are none other than the
parents of the second accused, and both of them apparently have no
motive to falsely implicate their daughter in the murder case of their
granddaughter. Even the accused have no case that PW1 and PW2
bore any grudge to falsely implicate the accused persons in a case of
this nature. In Kalinga‘s case cited above, the identification of the
dead body was made by none other than the father of the deceased
and not a relative of the accused. Likewise, in that case, the evidence
of the father of the deceased was found by the Supreme Court to be
riddled with contradictions, multiplicity of versions, and material
improvements, which is why the Supreme Court doubted the recovery
of the dead body as one effected on the strength of the disclosure
statement given by the accused.
48. In the case at hand, we find no reason to doubt the
identification of the dead body. The identification of the ornaments and
dress found on the dead body by PW1 is capable of inspiring the
confidence of the Court, particularly when the same was not
challenged in cross-examination. Likewise, the recovery of the dead
body pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the first accused
lends further assurance to the prosecution’s case that the body
recovered from the well is that of the deceased, Meera.
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:32:
2026:KER:32010
49. In short, after careful consideration, we have no hesitation
in holding that the prosecution has successfully proven the accused
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The compelling circumstances
meticulously examined above inexorably lead to the conclusion that
it was the accused who murdered the deceased. Likewise, the
circumstances presented in this case are incompatible with any
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
50. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the first accused, the conviction under Section 75 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was recorded against
the first accused in the absence of a specific charge. Furthermore,
there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the first accused had
actual care, custody, or control over the minor victim. Therefore, the
essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section
75 of the said Act are not made out against the first accused, and he
is consequently entitled to an acquittal for the said offence.
51. Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C. No.
1576/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VI,
Thiruvananthapuram, in respect of offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as
well as under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, insofar as they relate to the second accused.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2026 stands dismissed.
Crl.A.Nos. 77 of 2025 and 214 of 2026
:33:
2026:KER:32010
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2025, filed by the first accused, is
allowed in part. The first accused is found not guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act and is acquitted of the said offence.
However, the findings, conviction, and sentence passed by the trial
court against the first accused for offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are
hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS